Recommendations for lenses with more then 6 iris blades

[Les Sarile]

I would like to get some manual focus lenses in various focal lengths but I want them to have more then 6 blades. More often then not this bit of info is left off descriptions so I wanted to ask if you have or know of any such lenses. I have the following mounts that I can use them with - Canon, Konica, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax (M42 & K) & Yashica/Contax. TIA.

 

[tomalophicon]

Apparently the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 has 8 blades.

 

[Les Sarile]

Sorry but I am only looking for older manual focus lenses because I prefer the typical build quality to match my kinda cameras.

 

[Jesper]

Perhaps you could consider trying RF cameras?
When you don't need the speed in stopping down you usually have a lot more blades.
Take a look at Leica lenses and you will see what I mean.

 

[CGW]

Nikon 45/2.8 Ai-P has 7 blades.

 

[eSPhotos]

I think Russian Tair 11A (135mm f2.8) has something close to 20 blades.
Jupiter 9 (85mm f2) has ... 15 blades ...
They are M42 mount.
Tair 11A is one of the best Russian lenses I had.
FYI, if you look for old lenses in pre-set aperture, they usually have too many blades to count ...

 

[Les Sarile]

Jesper, I have been trying to get into RF's but the time isn't right. Are you saying that slower lenses have more blades in general or Leica specifically?

20 blades as eSPhotos recommended has piqued my curiosity. Other examples by Thomas for the 85mm Jupiter or Helios too.

Here are a couple of examples that clearly show my interest regarding the different results from a 10 (top) and 7 (bottom) bladed lens . . .

 

[mopar_guy]

Les,
I looked at the lenses which I own and counted the blades.

The following Olympus OM Zuiko lenses have six blades: 18mm f3.5, 21mm f2, 35mm f2, 40mm f2, 50mm f1.8, and 50mm f2 Macro.

The following Olympus OM Zuiko lenses have eight blades: 24mm f2, 50mm f1.4, 55mm f1.2, 85mm f2, 135mm f2.8, 180mm f2.8, 300mm f4.5, 400mm f6.3, and 600mm f6.5.

The 100mm f2 ED Zuiko and 250mm EDIF Zuiko both have nine blades.

 

[mopar_guy]

Oh, and I have a Tokina SZ-X 28-70mm zoom with eight blades

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Nikkor 50mm 1.2 ais = 9 blades
Canon 50mm 1.2 RF = 12 blades
Any ol enlarger lens 80mm or longer on a bellows = 16-25 or more blades!

 

[ffg]

The Canon FD f/1.2 85mm L lens has 8 blades and I think the FD 1.2/50mm L lens also has 8 blades. I have the 85mm and it's a wonderful lens.

 

[Les Sarile]

Dave, That's certainly a very nice selection of Zuiko lenses and thanks for taking the time to check them out. I will have to see if I have an 8 bladed lens to see how the geometry will affect this.

Newt & ffg, In looking at some superfast (f1.2) lenses, I was really disappointed in the lower blade count.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The current Zeiss SLR lenses in ZS (M42), ZE (EOS), and ZF (Nikon) mounts qualify. My 35/2 ZS (M42 mount) and the 85/1.4 ZE (EOS mount) have 9 blades, and I suspect the others do as well. They're all manual focus lenses.

I like the solidity of a lens with more blades and the nice round aperture, but that said, the optical design is a more important factor in the rendering of the out of focus portion of the image, and a lens with fewer blades stops down faster, reducing shutter lag.

 

[Les Sarile]

David, As photographers, we have been trained to use compromises to our advantage and certainly there are tradeoffs in lens selections. For instance in the picture below, once I noticed the not so perfectly round OOF highlights, it became distracting. I have heard of these bokeh monster lenses and would like to try them out. No doubt they will be exceptional in this characteristic, but there will probably be some other thing to consider after using them

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have an Canon 85 1.2L also which is excellent lenses.

Jeff

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

David, As photographers, we have been trained to use compromises to our advantage and certainly there are tradeoffs in lens selections. For instance in the picture below, once I noticed the not so perfectly round OOF highlights, it became distracting. I have heard of these bokeh monster lenses and would like to try them out. No doubt they will be exceptional in this characteristic, but there will probably be some other thing to consider after using them

In that image, though, the appearance of the out of focus highlights in the background (the foreground is different) isn't only caused by the shape of the aperture. If it had a perfectly round aperture you might still find it distracting, since the out-of-focus highlights are brighter at the edges than they are at the center, though not extremely so I would say. I've seen worse cases. It's more important, I think, that the center of the highlight points be brighter than the edges, and then the shape won't matter as much, and that's an optical design issue.

 

[pchicken]

I bought quite a few that fit your request but aquired a Spiratone TC 135 2.8 (18 blades) and was plensently surprised. In fact, there's one on ebay for right now $35 BIN ..

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . I like the solidity of a lens with more blades and the nice round aperture, but that said, the optical design is a more important factor in the rendering of the out of focus portion of the image, and a lens with fewer blades stops down faster, reducing shutter lag.

I agree. My Super-Angulon f/3.4 21mm in Leica M mount has four blades, and delivers Leica quality images.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The 58/2 M42-mount Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar in this group had lots of blades--maybe 17 or 18--lousy bokeh in my opinion:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=689715&postcount=113

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Also, I forgot to note, there are Rounded and Straight blades, many manufactures make either, or both. Must research production histories though.

 

[fstop]

In that image, though, the appearance of the out of focus highlights in the background (the foreground is different) isn't only caused by the shape of the aperture. If it had a perfectly round aperture you might still find it distracting, since the out-of-focus highlights are brighter at the edges than they are at the center, though not extremely so I would say. I've seen worse cases. It's more important, I think, that the center of the highlight points be brighter than the edges, and then the shape won't matter as much, and that's an optical design issue.

I bought a 200 f 4 Q auto that had bad blades. tore them out and shoot it wide open now in manual mode, no blades no shape.
the other option is to avoid those conditions that light up undesirable effects in the lens... you learned that in your first day of class right?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

the other option is to avoid those conditions that light up undesirable effects in the lens... you learned that in your first day of class right?

...unless of course you happen to be testing the lens for just those properties.

 

[fstop]

ah, I don't mind the shape actually, I use it on purpose in some shots. Adobe liked it so much they included it in one of the filters in PS.

 

[Les Sarile]

The 58/2 M42-mount Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar in this group had lots of blades--maybe 17 or 18--lousy bokeh in my opinion:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=689715&postcount=113

Unfortunately, the smallish posted images does not lead me to any conclusions.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have an Canon 85 1.2L also which is excellent lenses. Jeff

No doubt the Canon L optics are second to none but how many blades does it have and how does the highlighted OOF elements look like?